I think they're somewhat touched in the head for thinking that this would improve their religion's image. I don't care either way. They have the right to build the mosque there, if they have the building permit.

Point being: Saying that Democrats love war is a retarded statement that goes against reality. Democrats in the USA are obviously going to be more hawkish than the average European but they don't love war. From the start there was significant opposition towards the Iraq War among the Democratic base.

The Mexican-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, all initiated by Democrats.

Every Democrat in the Senate and all but one in the House voted for the Afghanistan war. The majority of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, as well as a substantial percentage of Democrats in the House.

The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2008. We are still in Iraq and we are escalating the war against Afghanistan.

So, sorry, the idea that the Democratic party is an anti-war party is just ridiculous. If it were, I'd have joined.

Ron Paul also voted for the Afghanistan War.

So did Dennis Kucinich. What's your point?

The Afghanistan War isn't really a good example.

How Ron Paul voted is not relevant to a discussion of how Democrats have voted.

Not to mention Ron Paul did propose an alternative to war back in 2001, and has for a long time now favored bringing the troops home. Barack Obama and the Democrats who control Congress want to not only continue but escalate the conflict in Afghanistan.

I agree that the Democrats are for the most part a pro-war party, i'm just pointing that there are better examples to prove it than how they voted on Afghanistan. Even most of the anti-establishment Democrats (and Republicans) voted for it.

Alright, so we're agreed then that the Democratic party is not an anti-war party.

I agree as well. I was saying that they are more anti-war than the Republicans and have a large anti-war base.

I'm not talking about the leaders of the Democratic Party, the history of the Democratic Party or Congressmen of the Democratic Party, just the base. Yes the DLC leadership of the Democrats is certainly more interventionist on foriegn policy than the base, but there will always be a wing of the Democrats that is extremely anti-war.

Also what the hell does the Democratic Party of the 1840s have anything to do with the Democratic Party of today?

Point being: Saying that Democrats love war is a retarded statement that goes against reality. Democrats in the USA are obviously going to be more hawkish than the average European but they don't love war. From the start there was significant opposition towards the Iraq War among the Democratic base.

It's a real possibility. Obiously, turnout's a huge factor in a midterm election. Given the two dozen or so Dems who always vote against the party's objectives, I think it's obvious the Dems aren't going to get anything accomplished next Congress regardless of whether or not they actually control the House.

Many of those Democrats will lose election this year. Gene Taylor, Matheson, and Boren will still be around but Blue Dogs will take a huge hit this year. Which is some good news for the Democrats, because their agenda won't be hurt as badly as it would be if more solid Democrats were in danger.

Yes, but that danger is hyped and probably will not happen. The GOP winning 30 seats from the Democrats isn't too difficult but winning 40 is a hurdle, especially when they have a high chance of losing 4 seats of their own. If there are some big scandals/bad news like in 2006 a 40 seat loss could look small...